Sony announces Alpha 7 II full-frame mirrorless camera with 5-axis IS

Sony has announced the Alpha 7 II, which the company has managed to keep very close to its vest. The big story on this 24MP full-frame mirrorless is its 5-axis sensor-shift image stabilization - the first of its kind in a full-frame mirrorless camera. Sony claims that this IS system can reduce shake by 4.5 stops using the CIPA standard. If an E-mount lens with OSS is attached, the camera will detect it and use a combination of in-lens and in-body stabilization.

Like the original a7, the a7 II features 117 phase detect and 25 contrast detect points on its CMOS sensor but Sony is claiming a 30% improvement in the a7 II's AF speed and 1.5x better tracking performance than its predecessor. Sony says this is thanks to its 'proprietary image analysis technology' using more information from a scene to keep focus locked on a subject.

On the video front, the Alpha 7 II now supports the XAVC S codec, which can record 1080/60p video at 50Mbps. The camera also supports S-Log2 to capture a wide dynamic range in video for grading.

From a design standpoint, the biggest changes are the grip - which is larger - and the relocation of the front command dial to a position on the forward edge of the grip. The shutter release button has been moved to a more natural position on the grip and the front panel is now magnesium alloy instead of plastic. The lens mount has also been reinforced, for more stability when using heavy lenses.

The a7 II is expected to ship in Japan on December 5th. No word yet on availability in other regions.

Comments

Still thinking of switching back to Sony, simply hate Canon colors and optical viewfinder is something of the past too. I really hope to see some fast, native E mount lenses and then there will be no questions about this small system anymore.

Nooooo, now I have to ditch my almost brand new Sony a7 quickly. This new a7II is the camera I dreamt of all my life. It looks and feels very good! The shutter button is in the right place now, it has five-axis stabilisation and it has a really good grip! Much better than the original a7 and it has many other improvements. This costs me money...

At least Sony considered to have a bold boddy, or at least a great grip, instead trying to have the smallest full frame dslr: this have no sense due to the many troubles it gives to users.

Not enough weight when using quality full-frame lenses that this body and sensor deserve.No enough grip on the same condition.Too lightweight while a truly high-resolution camera with an incredible sensor, that have a direct impact on the stability while pressing the shutter, and thus direct impact on the pictures taken: bluuuurrrreddddd.Non-sense of this lightweight small body when it's targeted as being used for landscape photography on a tripod (cf. DPReview reviews of the A7!).

I think Sony should offer a lightweight body, smaller if possible, for prime simple lenses (says 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2), and a bolder heavyweight body to compete with other dslr when equipped with a 70-200 f/2.8

EDIT: the stabilisation is welcome to solve most of these problems, and magnesium may solve others.

I just wanna buy A7s cause i'm going to shoot a video all in dark forest, anyway i stopped when i saw AYII, i'm not sure, can you tell me if we have the same dynamic range and iso like A7s or not,... i mean should i wait for A7II ?

Oh man, as soon as that 5 axis IBIS is paired with the A7s sensor shooting 4K internal, I think I'll have died and gone to heaven. It was always such a tragedy that this stabilization tech was reserved for Olympus' second rate video implementation.

The lens problem is a quantity issue. Naturally, the system is only one year old, but it still competes with fully mature FF DLSR's. I bought a nikon for this reason first and foremost (better AF, better build and an OVF were also reasons but less so).

And Sony has a bit of catch 22 in terms of lens design. Removing the mirror box doesn't make lenses small automatically, Sony has to compromize lens specs to make them small (relatively speaking) but that makes the lenses less impressive compared to the speed of FF DSLR lenses. If Sony tries to compete on speed, the lenses get bloated and people complain there too.

And mike9999 as a m43 shooter, ha ha, that's funny. I'm a Sony man too because I still have an A100 around somewhere.

Kodacolor: Yes, next they will be shrinking the size of the sensor! Seriously, I am sure that you understand that Sony is developing a brand new line of full frame mirrorless cameras available at a reasonable price. IMHO this shows the real benefits of this camera design - all the IQ advantages of FF in a small package.

Even more importantly it is an APS-C / FF hybrid camera so you can use APS-C telephotos in crop mode and FF wide angle in FF mode if you don't want to carry large FF telephoto lenses.

How true is this TOP comment? "Mind you, they have yet to provide the option of an uncompressed RAW format which is an almost universal wish from those of us who want the option of extracting maximum quality from the A7r."

I like that they made the grip bigger. I have big hands and I hated the ergonomics of the first A7. I just wish they would have used the extra real estate and jammed a higher capacity battery in there.

I definitely agree that these mirrorless cameras need bigger batteries. Mirrorless bodies consume more power, and yet these cameras have smaller capacity batteries than their DSLR counterparts. The NP-FM500H battery for the Sony A77 SLT has a capacity of 1650mAH while the capacity of the NP-FW50 battery for the A7 is only 1020mAh. It doesn't make any sense. Larger power consumption devices need larger capacity batteries, not the other way around. And it makes even less sense to keep using a smaller battery if the camera now has a deeper grip that can accommodate a larger battery. So I'm right there with you, TheDevil. Bigger battery, please!

I'd rather have system integration with my NEX and other E-mount cameras, and carry a couple of spare batteries that work on either, than multiple batteries for different E-mount cameras. If they moved all the batteries to the A-mount one, I'd get over it, but I don't think they would when the goal of some E-mount cameras is obviously smallest-size-possible

@quezra - I think it's inevitable that mirrorless cameras will move to larger batteries. Inevitable. It happened with DSLRs. It'll happen with mirrorless. And it's an even more pressing issue with mirrorless, because of their higher power consumption. Higher shooting capacity will be used as a selling point. As soon as one mirorless manufacturer starts touting higher shooting capacity in their new camera (by switching to a higher capacity battery), other mirrorless manufacturers will follow. Then it becomes a market pressure issue. So it's going to happen, sooner or later. Plus, I think it will happen (larger batteries, higher shooting capacity) as more and more people turn to mirrorless cameras as DSLR replacements. Right now, I use both DSLR and mirrorless, because DSLRs still have much better battery life. Mirrorless can't compete there. Mirrorless manufacturers will eventually want to close this shooting capacity gap. And they'll do it by finally upping the battery size.

Samsung and Panasonic already offer "higher" end batteries in their flagships. Samsung offered a new battery just for the NX1 (different from NX30 at least), and its rating was a "whopping" 500 shots on 1860 mAh. I don't know that much pressure will come from the other makers, whose lower end cameras are all very small and some already have split battery lines (and therefore even more unlikely to split further).

It wouldn't be a bad thing of course, but I am just pointing out that 2 batteries is just as nice way to get more than you generally need for a whole day's shooting.

I've several Panasonic M4/3 bodies. Only two of these share the same battery. One of few irritating issues with the Lumix M4/3 cameras. I also have and have had several Sony DSLR's (and a single SLT). They all share batteries.I think it's for the better to have only a few battery lines as Sony have chosen. The company could of course use the DSLR batteries in some of the "Nex'es"

Exactly. Which set of inconveniences one is willing to put up with would appear to differ based on whether one has bought into the system or not. Personally I always carry 3 batteries and don't always have to even change one on a typical day out, unless I start with 50% charge. Those same 3 batteries work with my 5N too, so when I have two cameras in my kit, I don't have to bring two sets of batteries.

The 3 features I was hoping for in the next generation A7 series were: faster focusing, quieter and even silent shutter like the Lumix GX7, and IBIS. I am in no hurry to upgrade, so am prepared to wait for the 3rd generation A7 to get the quiet shutter before I step into full frame.

Plus, lighter-weight lenses. I think the light weight can be achieved by making compromises of having lesser zoom range. For instance, the APS-C 10-18 achieves its light weight, I assume, by limiting the zoom range to 10-18 (i.e. 15-27 FF). That's a narrower range than the typical 18-35 or 16-35. By having a narrower range, which might be acceptable, we get much lighter lenses. Not everyone wants heavy lenses on their light A7 bodies.

I'm all for improvements in technology and image quality over time, but still waiting to see an article with the title "Skilled photographer upgrades to new camera and others notice dramatic improvement!"

Ramping up production can also take a little time. Time needed to build supplies so they can start selling the Camera in other markets. Plus maybe by the time we get it over here the Japanese will have any kinks worked out and we get the updated firmware.

at least Canikon fanboys admit to love a camera like this, but wait for one from their own brand of course. One or two years ago those people had never even considered a mirrorless. This A7II seems to be the first FF mirrorless that could beat a FF DSLR in every single way, and that's just the start..

I still don't consider a Mirrorless yet, I don't see any advantage except of weight and (mabye) noise. Size doesn't seem to be an advantage for me, a camera is a tool not a toy like you Sonyfanboys are wearing.

If you grow up you will notice that there is more than a body around a system. A professional support, an array of lenses and a line which will be there in 20 years, still. The sensors are good, the rest is crap for amateur use. What do I want with a camera for 300-400 shots and an internal accu-loadingsystem via USB?

This is a quite nice second camera for churches and lowlight but nothing serious for photographers.

So a short lens register allowing a wide range of legacy lenses is not an advantage? Or having full proper image preview in the viewfinder? Or a lot more exposure information? Or focus peaking and zoom in the EVF for manual focussing?

Eventually DSLRs will be relegated to a niche market, expecially when features like fully electronic silent global shutters appear (no DSLR can ever be truly silent). There's also a lot of mileage in hybrid AF when an intelligent system can combine CAF and PAF.

There are also cost avantages in getting rid of all those moving parts and precision setup issues required by a DSLR.

Much of this is to come, but the direction is clear and the majority of innovation is not in the mirrorless domain. It will become the dominant systems camera technology.

@TheEulerID Viewing images in finder-so practical of course when battery life is 2h of shootingFocus peaking-good and necessary because of stoneage autofocus you will use it for shure. But you can still be cool with it!Cost advantages-yes I see the prices of Fuji,Oly,Sony.

You forgot to mention one big plus of mirorless: rugged bodies and complette side equipement for underwater,wildlife,sport photogaphy...

Apsurd on side,they are good for streets and towns. You just have to keep yourself close to electrical plug.Enjoy!

Nothing a couple of spare (cheap compatible) batteries won't solve. I do wonder if those who obsess about "only" 250-300 shots on a battery recall when you had to change films every 36 exposures.

Also, you are confusing pricing with costs. Very different things. The latter is about how much it costs to make something; the former is charging what the market will bear. Apple manage to produce iPhones very cheaply, but can price them high. In an event, the cheapest FF camera around is the Sony A7 as I suspect it costs less to manufacture than any FF DSLR.

As for stone age focusing, there's a time and a place. For fine art, architectural, landscape and video, manual focus (with appropriate assists, like magnifying) is not only practical, but often preferable.

PAF is excellent on action photography of course, but hybrid focus is catching up fast and can do things PAF alone can't. Also, CAF is ultimately more accurate.

Full of fear, with close eyes and no clue they are going down on the sinking SLR-ship. They enjoy pressing the DOF-Preview button and checking their results on the LCD after each shot because they had no idea how the result would be. If the shot isn't sharp they need to calibrate their lenses to the inaccurate AF system. They are so "busy shooting" and "looking professional", they don't even have the time for a 5 seconds battery change after 300-400shots.

Coming from an A7, shooting on a DSLR seems like last century. The whole shooting workflow is that bad and slow, 0,05 seconds AF speed advantage (if any is left with the latest generation) doesn't matter at all. By the way, the internal charging is just an option, and a good one. I can charge my camera 3 times with my little powerbank or my laptop in the middle of nowhere. Try doing that with an AC-charger...

Zeisschen,nothing beats bringing a laptop in the middle of nowhere. I love that. Vast empty space of nature and a camera charging on the laptop. I see myself sitting next to them, waiting and admiring how this must is advanced. If there is just a little wind to refresh me...I'm not worried for dust and particles wich are carried by the wind because my mirrorless is so much more rugged than these cameras before them...I dont even remember their name..dmstlr,something.

Super! Advance is obvious! Neandertal with dslr,like myself,is not going to bring a laptop. I guess you did a lot of these advanced stuff,especially in warm climate because in cold your mirorless will make 150 shots and your laptop will shut down few seconds after welcome sceen.Enjoy!

Zoran, you got what a powerbank is, did you? A laptop was just another example of a USB source. You might as well use a car, an airplane or in your case, a carriage... We all know you don't like Sony, please go back to the Canon vs. Nikon arena. They must be nice companies because they give you bigger batteries and free AC-charger, obviously the last two reasons to buy their neandertal cameras...

Zeisschen, I like Sony and their FF, RX-1. Tech inside is amazing,but I wouldnt carry it anywhere outside civilization. Hope one day I will have enough money to buy it!Also, I dont belong to clan fighting and your asumption on what I dont like is too easy given. But, shalow clasifications are nothing new here,I know.

But it's not just a mirror is it? It's a high precision mechanical device which has to be carefully managed and damped so as not to vibrate the camera yet it has to be moved and returned in a few tens of milliseconds. I has to be exquisitely well aligned to the image plane, PAF sensors, viewfinder and it has to remain in this state for a hundred thousand operations or more. If you want 100% frame coverage, it's even more sensitive.

Indeed, it's known on top pro cameras that this is a very expensive, manual process. Even then, you need micro-adjustment for each lens and camera combination.

Then it needs to be combined with a precision ground focus screen, an expensive pentaprism (unless you cheap out on a penta-mirror) plus more optics for the eyepiece.

In contrast, the electronic components of an EVF are cheap, and getting cheaper. Alignment of the single sensor is trivially easy and the whole thing uses a completely closed-loop, self correcting AF system.

nb. also consider the history of technology. We have seen electronic components taking over the role of mechanical ones as the former becomes cheaper and easier. Think how flash storage has replaced mechanical storage for all but the large capacity HDDs (and that's only cost per unit storage, performance wise SSDs are vastly superior). Think that flash memory has replaced tapes in video cameras. Electronic doorchimes vs electromagnetic ones. That digital multimeters have replaced analogue ones. Where electronics is capable of a job, it normally ends up replacing mechanical versions, usually much more cheaply and reliably.

I see I see, you still struggle finding reasons why a DSLR is better. From what I read above you got your mirrorless "knowledge" from discussions here in forums But you have not even tried an A7s in the store? It doesn't look like it otherwise you would have an idea of what the difference between live view on a DSLR and in an EVF on a mirrorless means. Finally you come up with a 7000$ D4S body that might be half way comparable to what an A7s can do, but at 3 times the price, weight and size....

To be fair to VSCD, there will always be a niche for DSLRS, at least for the forseeable future. People love their Rolex watches, even if they cost multiples of something that will do the same functional job. Indeed, possibly because they pay so much more. There's a psychological aspect to photography, almost a sensuous attachment.

But the writing is on the wall. Some are in denial (I recall the same thing over auto-focus, digital photography and much else). We might not be there yet, but it's not so far away. Meanwhile I suspect engineers at Canon and Nikon are working some long hours.

DSLR are going to be replaced the same way film was. New technology have supplanted old not because it did everything better, on the contrary, it did a lot of it BAD... When digital came along it was terrible, when the iphone came it only had 2G, when SLR replaced rangefinders it introduced a lot of lag, etc etc... New technology imposes itself only because what brings to the table, and the market decides.

Having said that, the A7 is crap. Look at the specs, sure, it looks like a professional equipment well priced. Look at the implementation and sucks, it looks like an overpriced toy.

1/60 shutter speed on autoShutter button lacks any sort of feedback and steps.The way apps were implemented is a joke.It is slooooowwwwwww waking up.PASM modes don't recall the last settings.Battery hungry.... I could go on

To be fair, it takes great pictures, but compared to the other cameras I have it get a lot less use... So at the end it produces less and frustrates more.

So you bought the first generation that has some flaws, let's call most of them firmware issues. Did you update your firmware btw? Sounds like your're still on 1.0What's the problem with the Apps? And do any DSLR even have apps?

I don't struggle finding arguments for DSLRs, because I don't need to. The new technology has to convince *me*, not vice versa. And until now I just hear you repeating what the manufacturers printed in their commercials. In real live (apart from streetphotography or fanboygadgets) the DSLR is still a grown up tool you can rely on. The mirror itself is 30 year old relyable technology. Guess why an shutter has a counter but not any mirror. It doesn't break.

The mirrorless system exists since the Leica went out, but no one dumped the DSLRs by now. This is nothing new. Canon even has Experience in SLT Cams... they don't seem to care. Lets face it, if you lock the mirror up, you *have* a mirrorless.. the only thing you don't have is the (minor) size-advantage. Canon could easily attach an EVF or project the view on the prism. You could have the advantages from both worlds.

I think YOU got an expensive toy and now try to justify it. Bashing on Canon or Nikon won't help you.

Calling anything else than a DSLR a "toy" und their users "fanboys" seems to satisfy you a lot. I'll leave you alone with that "opinion". You don't even have to be convinced by the new technology and jump brand or anything, just keep your DSLR until the end of your life, no problem at all! New customers without any investment in any system have to be convinced to buy the bigger and more expensive cameras in the future. But that's not your or my problem, it's just Canikon's. Happy life!

Oh you're so smart and wise. Read your own comments on "Canikon's" and judge your age. My problem is not the new system but the ones who judge on professional equipment just on every "new" product on the market. Why can't you just live in coexistence? What's the problem with the guys from Sony or Fuji? Why do you think you're superiour to everything. Why do you hate the DSLRs so much? It's because of the smaller size of the body you have to compensate? Why does this brand-spam doesn't come from Pentax Users? Why do Olympususer live in freedom with Nikon/Canon?

You just tell bull. Which DSLR is more Expensive? In fact, away from commercials the expensive cams are X-T1, Om-E5 or A7. Not the "big" D7100 or Canon 70D. Not even the D610.

But I agree with you... it's useless to discuss with you, you have your "opinion" and this will last. But I guess you didn't shoot any good picture today with your toy. End of transmission.

The A7 is not an expensive camera. As far as I'm aware, it's the lowest priced FF body out there, although it has to be conceded that Sony E-mount lenses are currently very limited and rather expensive, although there is a much wider range of A-Mount that can be used.

As for hating DSLRs? What an inappropriate emotion to use on a mere camera. Why would I feel that? They've never done me any harm. It's just that the balance and industry is changing. There is a lot of innovation, and DSLRs have a declining market share because of it.

I have the latest firmware. While startup times have been reduced, it only applies to when you turn on/off the camera within a short period of time. Everything else have gone totally unfixed by Sony since the release of the camera.

The problem I have with apps is the inconsistent behavior. On paper it looks like a great feature. When you go to actually use, then you realize it is a toy.

- The apps take over all your custom functions and settings, so forget the way you like to shoot.- They are again: slow- Some don't even allow you to save RAW- No way to shutoff the display- If camera goes to sleep, it is even worse than normal waking on.- No way to assign apps to custom functions. To quickly load an app you have to click, click, click.

It is a great idea nobody else have. But what's the use if it is totally unusable?

I really dont agree with the size issue you are pointing at. A more discret camera is less intrusing and thats a huge change for photographers specially for street photographers and reporters. So no it's not a toy instead of a tool, it's an improvment!

All three have the SAME shutter. Each use it differently depending what the sensor is capable of but the A7S is 'capable' of being the same 'clattering' shutter as the A7R.... because they are the same shutter.

@Rob Sims - No that isn't 'well known' because it is factually incorrect. They all have the SAME shutters. The A7S has a more damped body which makes it sound quieter, understand? A7 II with EFCS 'should' be quieter again than A7S when both are using EFCS.

@ Rob Sims - Do you really think they would bother using different (but otherwise spec'd the same) shutters on all three? I didn't say the A7S is quieter I said that the body dampening makes it appear quieter.

When you tested them did you have the exact same lens attached? Grip / No Grip. Tripod mounted? Held the same way?

And for what most people refer to as the 'clatter' of the A7R (due to the additional movements of the shutter compared to EFCS models), yes the A7S, A7 and A7R are roughly capable of the same sound, give or take some differences in body dampening.

@aboutaboutI can only go off what I have experienced personally. To do otherwise would be foolish of me. It was at the launch event of the A7/A7R in Singapore. I then went on to purchase the A7 due to it's quieter shutter, faster AF and lower requirements for post-processing (due to 24mpx raws, instead of 36).

In my personal opinion, this loud shutter business is completely overblown... the A7R does have an annoying double clunk sound, but with the EFC the A7 never had that (and even with it switched off, it was quieter than the A7R). My A7 was much quieter than the camera it replaced... a Nikon D700. I don't remember a single review site or forum posting complaining that that had a loud shutter.

@ Rob Sims - I did the same thing, the A7 for all the same reasons over the A7R. I also completely agree the A7R double clunk is overblown and the A7 is obviously better. I also happen to have a D700 and yes the shutter mechanics (including mirror) are definitely louder than the A7 (and maybe even A7R, which isn't louder really but definitely longer).

I also have an A7S which through the more damped body definitely has a lower frequency sound to it which makes it appear quieter and more 'appealing', it is also quieter than my D700.

But they are the same shutter, just wrapped up in different sound deadening (the body) that makes them sound a little different. The biggest difference is still A7R due to no EFCS. I would also still say the A7 II (unless it is a completely different shutter mech) will be more damped again due to the heavier, bigger, more solid body and more hardware in the actual guts of the camera, plus the sturdier mount like that of the A7S.

@Abortabort - If the really are the same, then I stand corrected... they sounded different enough to my ear (with EFC off on the A7), so you can understand my logic.

A lot of the the noise coming from the forums re: the A7R shutter sound were I assume from insecure M43 users trying to justify their choice of small sensor cameras... but it really took on a life of its own. Strange really, given that the A7 is noticeably quieter than any another full frame camera I've used.

multi-aspects means you always waste some sensor area no matter which aspect you choose, that's counter productive esp. on larger sensors. Panasonic already dropped multi-aspect on their true 4/3 inch line. Panasonic and Canon only have multi-aspect sensor on their fixed-lenses camera, so the cost by wasting sensor area could be compensated by reduced image circle of lenses, and more cost could be saved by re-using existing sensor product instead of creating a brand new one.

@Preternatural, because the lens illuminates a circular area, the rectangular sensor which captures the most of it is a square, and the maximal 3:4 aspect ratio sensor would capture more of it than the maximal 2:3 aspect ratio sensor. Hence, it would make sense to have a 3:4 sensor, unless you always crop your images to a ratio of 2:3 or less.

If you crop a 2:3 image to 3:4, you not only waste sensor area, but you also waste light. If you crop a 2:3 image to 3:4, you only waste sensor area.

4:3 is close to the 1932 Academy format before widescreen cinemas got popular and superseded in in the 50s, and is the aspect ratio for NTSC SDTV. The world has moved on, and it is an outdated relic that inexplicably lingers in low-end compact point and shoots (which are dying, eaten alive by smartphones) and the ill-advised m43 format.

3:2 is much closer to the golden mean, to the 21st Century 16:9 standard for televisions and most computer monitors, and to the human eyes' natural field of view. Sony would be astonishingly dumb if they downgraded from 3:2 to 4:3.

I got a Sony A7R because I like to run around with several bodies when shooting sights. I have 4 full frame pro bodies so it was a great addition size wise as well as when it comes to quality. I'm eagerly awaiting the A9. I use the A7R with the zeiss 55mm and really like the results. IBIS is a great addition to an already very good product.

Of course there are downsides - eg, battery life is crap, but, the spares are cheap.

Vignes brings up a valid point in that Sony is competing against itself by offering 2 distinctly different camera systems to exactly the same customer at exactly the same price points, but share nothing else of value to that customer other than their Sony branding. IMO, this conflict of interest is the biggest obstacle to Sony becoming a successful, (as in profitable), camera manufacturer. I'm just curious as to how this drama will play out for Sony, and I imagine that the big 2 are just as curious as I am. I don't know whether it will be the mirrorless E mount or the A mount SLT, but one of those systems is going to have to die or move way upmarket away from the enthusiast consumer space and take on the big 2 as the tool of choice for professionals. Personally, I don't see that tool of choice thing working out for Sony. :)

abortabort, I used to be a Minolta user during the film days. Minolta makes very good SLR bodies. One of Sony's intentions for acquiring Minolta Camera dev was the M mount. M mount is A mount now plus they start their DSLR business with the already committed Minolta users. I was glad with that as I can continue using my Minolta gears with Sony Alpha DSLR. What opened my eyes was when they introduced the NEX – E mount. The development of the NEX was fast with many new models release etc. you can see the DSLR development is slow. We complain that Canon is slow to update but if you see Sony’s high end DSLR, the update cycle is slow. Sony believes that the A/M mount user would be happy to buy a lens adaptor for their MILC and continue with Sony. For me, I move on and went for a different system maker. I like what Sony does but I can’t keep dumping a particular system. I bet if Canon/Nikon were to do the same, they would upset many more than Sony/Minolta users and it would be a disaster.

That is the same argument the big two use when they look at mirrorless, they don't want their mirrorless cannibalizing into their own dslr sales. Hence the Nikon V series with a CX sensor and Canon's half a$$ M cameras. They need to protect their massive dslr sales. Sony on the other hand doesn't have a comparable dslr/slt user base as compared to the big two. Their only way of disrupting the market and hopefully fight it's way into being market leader is to come up with something innovative and new (A7 series). Once the A7 series take off believe it or not but I strongly believe that it's A mount SLT will increase as well. Look at Apple for example their Mac computers were at most a niche product, however after the success of the iPhone and ipads their Mac computers are selling better than before. Even though PCs are declining in sales. I can see the same happening to Sony if the momentum continues with the A7 series. To be honest I'm one of those that had no interest what so ever in Sony's SLT, I actually went straight to the camera shop and bought a D7100. Didn't even bought to compare it to any Sony's offerings. However that has all changed since I bought my A7. Now since my Nikon fell and is unrepairable I need to get a dslr/slt for its handling of longer zooms and guess what I'm actually looking at Sony's offerings now. Especially with the ability to use the lenses for my A7 body as well. And soon have it stabilized. It's a good time to be a photographer!!!!

abortabort, you are absolutely right on all counts. The big 2 are not about to alienate their well established customer base by introducing a competing system to their interchangeable lens cameras that's incompatible with what they already sell in order to offer a mirrorless product. Makes no business sense at all. However, if you're building a new camera system from scratch like Fuji, Oly, Pana, and Samsung, then you don't have an established customer base to offend yet, and mirrorless is definitely the most cost effective platform to go with. Sony is at a crossroad where they are going to have to alienate somebody in order for them to move forward. The trick is in how they do it and how soon will they do it? It'll be interesting to see how that plan unfolds. :)

As for SLT cameras, they just released the A77II not long ago, and rumors abound for the A99II. That's about all they're doing in that market, because they're already dominating mirrorless - most notably IBIS equipped FF mirrorless.

With IBIS, you can have stabilization with any focal length you want. If you don't want it, just shut it off! But the reality is that stabilization can be helpful even at shorter focal lengths. Why do you think Canon introduced a full frame 24mm f/2.8 IS lens? Anything that can get you a more stable handheld shot can be an advantage and a benefit.

I have a Nikon DX 12-24 zoom without IS, and a Sony 10-18 OSS. I can tell you I really value to lens stabilisation especially in low light. If OSS wasn't beneficial, why did Sony add it to the top-of-the-range 16-35 Zeiss zoom?

Sensor based stabilization is always a compromise as the stabilization depends on the focal length. Especially on longer lenses the optical formulars are far superior to the sensormovements. I don't have anything against a bodybased system but to say it's equal to a real VR (Nikon) or IS (Canon) is just wishful thinking. I like the Idea of Olympus to have both. You can use the build in system for the most cases and more specific ones on the lenses.

I'm lost.All Anti shake solutions depends on accelerometers to detect movement and to give input to a regulator, or correction loop.If it is the sensor or a piece of glass that moves, doesn't change that. All lens systems communicate FL to the camera and the (probably) PID regulator. And most cameras also allow for manual entry of FL for other lenses. All these regulators filters out a certain frequency span to act on.Frequency below that span could for example be panning, an above, is a possibly a erroneous signal from the sensor.

Glass may be a smaller mass to move, and allow for a higher frequency. On the other hand, IBIS allows for handling rotational shake, for instance from handling of shutter press.

Calling one solution "Real VR" is almost hilarious.Especially if one of them only offers two stabilized primes faster than 2.8 .

@vscdThat really depends on the IBIS you are talking about vs. what optical stabilization you are talking about. For example, I find it infinitely easier to get a sharp photo at low shutter speeds using my EM-10's IBIS with the Panasonic 100-300 lens, instead of using the mega OIS available on the lens.

I, for myself, also use the same lenses with film on an older EOS1NHS. So every lense I buy can "carry" it's IS from body to body. Maybe the term "RealVR" is a little bit tough (and wrong), I admit. But shifting the sensor for a 400mm 2.8 lenses is quite difficult. In summary the mirrorless-system get's more questionale toward the longer lenses. The size/weight advantage, the handling, the non-intrusive look. All gone.

It's a good second cam to have on trips or jobs when you need smaller gear. But it's not *THE* new system all hassle about. It's a coexistence.

I have a A7 and i regularly use old Canon FD and new Canon EF lenses on it. You will have to buy an appropriate adaptor for them.With FD you will have to set aperture and focus manually. With EF the AF works on some lenses and dosent work on some. With those it works it is slow or you need to half-press the shutter button a second time to focus. However, once focussed it is correct 9/10. Automatic Aperture works fine. Exif data is also conveyed to the camera. I have used following lenses. FD lenses - 24mm, 28mm, 100mm macro, 300mm, 100-300mm zoom, 75-200f4.5 Zoom. EF lenses - EFS 17-85 (AF -Yes), 50mmf1.8(no AF), 100mm Macro(AF-Yes), 600mmf4(AF-Y), 400mmf5.6(AF-Y), Tamron28-200f3.8-5.6(AF-Y).Nikons all lenses including G series work with appropriate adopters, however they behave as manual lenses with no EXIF data coupling to camera.

I'll settle for the day that technology gives us a small camera that can deliver the quality that 8x10 sheet film gives us. Film quality is fixed, but digital is inching closer towards that peak of the mountain. Who knows, in your grandkids' generation.

I have so much Minolta Alpha glass, and I do not wish to go to the E mounts. I cringe at the thought of buying an adapter to make my glass work. I think I will wait until the A9 if I buy at all. But this is really a good camera I must say. It is not cold or like a brick. The D4 is a huge crazy heavy camera. Nice but heavy. Though I really do not care how bulky they are as long as they do the job I wish for them to do. And finally getting IBIS in the E cameras...WoW. Sony you may cause me to sell off my A mount stuff yet................maybe.

Great camera, great specifications, but lack of emotions like XT1. Camera like a brick too modern and too cold for me. If you are tired of pixel peeping like me and want to get a joy from photography, camera should be with soul :) Fuji will spoil many of us with soul and light lenses. I don't want to use D810 anymore, except for product photos (need)..

Not so concerned with the aesthetics of a camera (my A7r is not very attractive to me), but rather the ergonomics and technical aspects that allow the camera to not get in the way of trying to take an image. I don't know how you define the 'soul" of a camera.

I get what he's trying to say actually. Some cameras, while not having the best specifications, have a certain something about them which makes the enjoyable to shoot with. It is, however, premature to judge this camera to that end unless you've actually picked it up in your hands and shot with it.

As an example, my Pany GX7 is not particularly attractive to me, but I enjoy using it because the buttons are in function places, the EVF is more than good enough, the menu system seems to make sense, and it has useful features for me.

On the contrary my A7r looks pretty sexy to me (reminds me of my FE2/FM3A days), but the buttons are not in the most useful spots, the menu system is right down there in the dirt with Oly's, and the feature set/implementation is not quite there to make it enjoyable to use on a regular basis - I find I have to fight the camera to get what I want out of it. I keep it because it's small, light and is capable of excellent images.

I think the XT1 looks ugly, but I adore the Sony 7 series minimalistic looks. Among the Fujis, the X100 and X-E series look nice but the others look very tired. The XT1 looks like a battle tank, in all the wrong sense of that word.

its is not to everyone's taste for sure, but it give direct control no camera has done before and that's why so many people buy it even it still has its flaws. If you out the 14 or 23 lens on it, it basically become a retro film camera with digital back.

Been browsing this website for around 3 years now... Still don't understand what the infatuation with mirrorless cameras is...'Mirrorless is the future' Sais who?.... The EVF's are a joke and so is the battery life....

I knew this was possible... to have both sensor and optical stabilization and the camera decides how to implement them. It's really the best of all worlds. But whenever I brought it up, people screamed at me.

Of course, you can have both sensor and optical stabilization. But the sum of both effects must always be kept to 1, that's the nature of things technologically. So, if you have both, the camera must switch one of the two mechanisms off (the worse one if it has data for that to decide for a given shutter speed), of combine both with, e.g., half effect.

That's all pretty simple and basic stuff. I don't think people told you otherwise in the past.

It's best of all worlds because some stabilization is always better than none. If "it's better in the lens' like Canon claims , then the manufacturer can still put it in the lens. But on vintage lenses, or new lenses which don't have stabilization built-in, all of a sudden you can still have the benefits of some stabilization rather than none at all.

@straylightrunIf you have both systems, their combined effect cannot exceed that of the better of the two. You basically always switch off the worse of the two. If you would activate both dystems at full effect, they would actually perform slightly worse than no stabilization at all. I could explain all this in plenty detail but leave that as an exercise to you.

I don't think it will matter to most people whether or not both systems working in tandem is "better" than 1 or the other system, or the same. The important thing is that you have the capability to have stabilization with any lens you stick onto the camera. Not only that, but all the vintage lenses you stick onto this camera will give the angle of view they were intended for and manufactured for on 35mm film. None of the glass in the lens will be "wasted" like it is when you stick vintage glass on APS or m4/3.

I really like the instant feed back from an EVF. Now we can have that plus focus peaking and IBIS for our legacy manual focus Glass. For me personally that means I can shoot film with my Nikon AIS glass and use the same lenses on the FF Sony. Sweet deal how can you possibly hate on that.

@Terry, We always tend to see what we miss first, so any change is met with sceptisim. What you say matches my reaction, and now when I use an OVF I realise that both have limitations. I just didn't see them before.

I would place my bet on it having EFCS. Full electronic shutter? That I doubt. However, it is possible that Sony has used some of the extra space to dampen the shutter noise (1/8000s shutter for FF sensor in such compact space was the first issue... the camera is slightly thicker now).

It seems it's tough to dampen the sound in such a small dense body - kind of like my film cameras back in the day - a pretty loud clack. My D800 is much less noisy, but it has a much larger body with the shutter buried inside to dampen the noise.The A7 family shutter nose is one major downside in some situations for sure - hopefully EFCS will help out a lot.

No, it will have a noisy shutter like the original a7. EFCS is still not that great, many other mirrorless cameras have quieter shutters than Sony with EFCS on. No silent electronic shutter like the a7s.

Waiting for a Nikon 36MP full-frame? Well, you might be. Suppose rumours are true that they too are working on a mirrorless theme as are Canon? Imagine being able to have full-frame coverage using all the Nikkor lenses you cannot use on the A7 series WITH AF, and with no loss of coverage because Nikon will keep the same style and leave the space for the mirror empty (save perhaps for a removable filter to protect the sensor and the electronics as Sigma DSLRs used to have).

Daft on the face of it? Not really because as soon as you get beyond about the 35mm lens you need and then get provided with too long lenses, each of which has to compensate for the loss of the mirror box on the A7 by adding an extra bit of its own. As this applies to most lenses the kit is larger and heavier, as the sole advantage of the A7 series body is its narrowness. But that happens once only.

I pray Nikon keep the mirrorbox on theirs and then we wont have to replace all our already too expensive lenses

Nope, A7ii and a Nikon to E adaptor is smaller and lighter than a standard DSLR by a fair bit. Also on A7ii they added the beefier grip that some people felt was missing on the A7. Also it’s a weather sealed metal frame. If what you want is just a larger metal frame so it will look like cameras you’re used to, that will add weight.

You know how many native lenses Nikon has for their full frame mirrorless cameras? NONE

Do you know what you'll need to get to keep using legacy full frame glass from you Nikon DSLR's on this fictional mirrorless camera? AN ADAPTER.

Just how much performance are you going to maintain through the adapter?

Just how much native glass will they need to make to maximize the potential of these as yet to non existant camera? ALL OF THEM.

Sony is creating cameras that people will demand lenses for. The demand is needed before the product exists. The A7II will certainly do it's part to increase demand for those same lenses we are all asking for. IBIS will relieve manufacturers from feeling like then have to have optical stabilization, too.

Current sales is a poor way to judge the future. Is Ford Exploder still the best selling SUV that it was in the 1990s?

With cameras though, the newbies typically look for what appears "professional" to them. As pros transition into other options AND mirror-less tech matures further (and it has, fairly quickly with more room to do so), it is possible we will see an impact there as well.

It is mostly a joke, but shows that offering IBIS may not mean success. Those offering in the past did not see any increase in adoption rates. Canikon marketing won in the end. Marketing DSLRs with IBIS didn't save Sony or Olympus. Neither makes them anymore. If a format does well in the future it won't be due to IBIS, IMHO.

You're confusing correlation with causation IBIS has not *caused* this so-called "jinxed DSLR sales". It's merely a correlation. Correlation does not imply causation. In other words, a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. For example, "Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and obesity levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes obesity." Obviously, that's false, just like you implying that the inclusion of IBIS caused Sony and Olympus to "no longer make DSLRs!" LOL. Nice try.

@GoneMirrorless - your conclusions are flawed. First of all, with Sony and Oly DSLR, they were both going against heavily entrenched Canon and Nikon DSLR...and Oly was further hampered by using a smaller sensor. I don't think Sony or Oly ever really stood a chance in the DSLR segment. But now they are in a different camera segment: mirrorless. So they will attract people who want the characteristic aspects of mirrorless, and they'll have the ADDITIONAL benefit of IBIS. In the DSLR segment, IBIS alone was not enough of a draw. But today, IBIS and mirrorless *combined* are a much better and more compelling draw, which is further enhanced by the fact that Canon and Nikon's mirrorless offerings are so poor and non-competitive!

they started sabilizing lenses in the FILM days, so stabilizing in the lenses was the only way possible, with digital revolution that limitation was over and companies that didnt have a bunch of legacy tecnology from the film era started to try other aproaches (like the Minolta with th Dynax 7D)

in a future, not very far away, Nikon and Canon will also stop making DSLR

Hello topstuff,A fast 35 mm is already in the works - the Sony lens roadmap for 2015 shows a full-frame Zeiss 35 1.4 (Distagon, IIRC).There's also the manual-focus Loxia 35 2.0.Honestly, I think the 35 1.4 will be too expensive and large - I'd personally prefer the current (very compact) 35 2.8.I'm also very excited by the A7 II - I use a NEX-6 and always wanted to upgrade to an A7; now I have an even better option. And it will also drive down the prices for second hand A7's, if I want to go that route.

Sony, will we get A7R II, A7S II also? Your product roadmap is very confusing. Why give us so many different choices when u probably can merge them together into at least just 2 models instead. Also, are we expecting annual update for this kind of "expensive" cameras?

Big attention this camera gets. I would like Sony system continue to improve,there is a space. So far I m not interested. Battery life is poor. Also I would like to have an oportunity and see how it feels in hand with some proper glass. I m afraid FF lenses are heavy and whole package is akward to hold. But that I would have to see.

I don't remember I give any shopping instruction. Seems like my comment hit you a bit hard. If it's not problem to you,than buy it! From your respond I wouldn't say so.

Btw,battery life on all mirorless cameras (including this 2014. sony's marvel too) is way too poor for spending few weeks up to a month on travel.In places with a lots of sand and wind,ocean salted air,rare electricity plug.... I would rather bring a non-mirorless camera with me. No matter weather sealing they have and kilos of cheap batteries in my pocket.For me,mirorless are still city slickers. As I'm not, they have to improve for me to consider one of them.

More about gear in this article

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Chinese company Techart has produced an adapter that works with the AF system of Sony's A7 II and A7R II cameras to create an autofocus effect for Leica M mount lenses. The adapter ring sits between the body and the lens and uses a motor to drive the lens back and forth until sharp focus is found. Read more

DPR reader Scott Matthews is an early riser, which is a lucky thing to be if you also have access to sweeping views of the New York skyline. He captures the colors of sunrise, sunset and the night lights of the city all using adapted manual focus lenses with his mirrorless camera body. Find out why he prefers this combination and see a selection of his work. Read more

Earlier this month, Sony announced firmware v2.0 for its Alpha 7 II. This update gives the Sony a7 II uncompressed Raw and better autofocus performance with adapted lenses. Previously, the a7 II could only use Contrast Detect AF to acquire focus when using adapted glass, resulting in quite a bit of hunting. Read more

Sony's a7 II will receive a firmware update that will boost its AF performance with adapted lenses as well as adding support for uncompressed Raw. The update adds a menu option that pushes the camera to either use phase detection (for speed) or contrast detection (for accuracy) when using non-native lenses. Read more

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.